Thanks for this Kou. I think the change makes sense and is a good idea.
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 1:49 AM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > This is a similar discussion to the "[DISCUSS] Split Go > release process" thread[1], the "[DISCUSS] Split Java > release process" thread[2], the "[DISCUSS] Split R release > process" thread[3], the "[DISCUSS] Split C# release process" > thread[4] and the "[DISCUSS] Split JS release process" > thread[5]: > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/fstyfvzczntt9mpnd4f0b39lzb8cxlyf > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/b99wp2f3rjhy09sx7jqvrfqjkqn9lnyy > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/6xl7zzf9y71dpjv5dvmn3fcm7rppggzx > [4] https://lists.apache.org/thread/xbtq1ndjnljyo9jpm4ozblq9wx7hrc7y > [5] https://lists.apache.org/thread/qpjt8ypmw1h8j1445kmn8s7wqml0cwoy > > But this discussion focuses on only repository split > (splitting the swift/ directory in apache/arrow to > apache/arrow-swift) because we haven't released our Swift > packages yet. Our source archive includes the swift/ > directory but it can't be used as a Swift package. Because a > Swift package requires: > > * A Git repository > * Must have "Package.swift" at the top-level of the Git > repository > > See also the Swift Package Manager (SwiftPM) documentation: > https://www.swift.org/documentation/package-manager/ > > > We can add Package.swift to the top-level of apache/arrow > but it may not be desired. We need to create a separated > repository for Swift so that we release a Swift package. > > > Concerns: > * We haven't any PMC members nor committers who focus on > Swift yet > * I can keep helping the Swift implementation but more > helps are better > * ... > > > What do you think about this? > > > Thanks, > -- > kou
